| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies  Bulk Cannabis Seeds  Buy Bali Kratom Powder  Red Vein Kratom  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 wandrnshaman old hand Registered: 09/21/03 Posts: 1,196 Loc: Pinellas Co, FL |
| ||||||
|
No, I mean there are more important things to lose sleep over. Sorry if I was a little unclear.
| |||||||
|
Asante - new man -    Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 86,400 |
| ||||||
|
Ok.. I'm going to state a personal opinion here regarding Swami's first ban which was so disputed. I will absolutely not be representing the Administry in this. I will absolutely not engage in discussion because this has gotten nobody nowhere except a bunch of grief and closed threads, not to speak of alienation between some members and the management.
I'm going to state my case just one more time and this time I will go all-out. Please do not expect a discussion because if one member says one thing that looks like the mudslinging and drama we had before I will not even reply yo any responses, no matter how benign, at all. I have gravely misbehaved but I, being only human, was provoked by several members who in my view gravely misbehaved too. This is Spir & Phil. If I cannot state my personal opinion about the Swami banning here because i happen to be a moderator then nobody will get any answers from me. I post my personal opinion here. Not website policy, but because I crossed the line in being rude and now am pleasantly surpriesed by the friendly atmosphere in this thread here I will post my personal viewpoint for those who sincerely are confused about the matter, and not those who are rallying for a cause. Please, let us be civil about this. I will state my view on things such that it is self-explanatory for those who want to understand my viewpoint, and this time I will play all the cards as I percieve them. ------------------------------------------------------ The "guests in somebody's house" analogy is correct. The Administrators physically *own* the Server (the House) and that means we are *not* in a place of democracy but rather in somebody's home, or, as I put it before, in a Kingdom. And Kings/Admins are never chosen by the people. Kings Rule. Look at it like this: The Admins are throwing a psychedelic party in their own home. Everybody is invited. Some people whom they trust are called upon to serve the drinks and snacks. These are the Moderators. Moderators are hand-picked by the Admins. The Admins throw the party, and it is after all their house. This never was a democracy. Don't get upset. Hear me out, and then decide if you will get upset. Remember it is my personal opinion, as a moderator, member and human being and I will lay all the cards on the table as I see them. That ought to deserve your respect even if you disagree. There has been much uproar over Swami's banning. Many explanations were given, or rather they were many sides of the same thing. Let me clarify things for once and for all. Swami was justly banned. Great was the outcry that he didn't break any rules, that he was banned for completely random reasons. Now here me out: we're getting there. If the Administrators had banned Swami for completely random reasons, then that in itself would be justified. It's their party, it's their house, and they can point anyone to the door with zero justification needed, just because they want them out the door. Kings Rule. But this is not what has happened. Swami was banned by Moderators. Moderators cannot ban without due reason or they will be strongly reprimanded or lose their Modship. And now here's the card you all have been waiting for. Will I have a good hand or has this been a game of bluff-poker like was alledged? Swami was, in my personal view, justly banned using rules that exist on this website since before time was. Please look up the "Administrative Rules and Guidelines". Quote: People (not just one or two) have complained to the Administry about how insistently Swami baited, badgered and harassed them and these complaints by different people have been flying in for many many months. As you see in the Rules: people are encouraged to do this and they did. What constitutes harassment, and the degree of it, is to the sole discretion of the management. Kings Rule. The Moderators work for them. In my view Swami was not banned earlier because until then it never became a "red alert". But it has often, way too often, been "yellow alert" just shy of banning. And then comes the next PM, and the next, and finally the Moderators decided there has been ample harassment and issued the first ban. There hasn't been a sudden thunderstorm, but rather an insistant rain, and though less spectacular then a thunderstorm a light rain for months and months still is no sunshine. There have been communications with Swami which, as I see it, have been quite unsatisfactory as they did not stop the rain from falling. Quote: And so it was: Swami was banned, because of insistant harassment of members, by Moderators who acted to the letter of the rules. And the Administrators did not reverse this ban. And Kings Rule: It's their party in their house. So as you can see Swami was banned according to the rules and the Administrators did not reverse his ban. During this ban Swami posted a list of demands against the management. Imagine: a violation of ban to state a list of demands against the owners of the house and the ones who cater the party. If this had been your website, would you *really* have so much respect for a member who obviously held so little respect for you, and even tries to gang up the guests against the owners of the house? Or would you on your website do the same thing as on any other website, namely shove this individual out the door? The Administry have been Boddhisatva's of Patience and Lenience in this matter. What happens now? A brisk discussion ensues between the Management and the more vocal guests of this party. A few of these guests become very hostile and emotional in their debating. The Moderators stand between the guests and the owners of the house and they toughen up. "Go hence: we owe you nothing, you are but guests" The Moderators bent over backwards to explain how it was against some very hostile house-guests, discussion which you likely would not engage in at all. The Shroomery is a very tolerant place. And we have the Admins to thank for that. And Kings Rule. A mighty fine Kingdom, I may add. You come at this party as a guest. Look at it from this side: -Server maintenence. -Software updates. -Software, hardware & bandwidth issues. -Financing and advertisements. -Public relations with befriended websites. -Dealing with guests to your party who gang up and become highly annoying. -Stopping people from accidentally killing themselves with insane drug combinations. -Justifying yourself to the world's news media when a poor, poor kid does die. -Managing, locking and transporting threads that are out of place. -Answering questions newbies and regulars send you by PM. -Being present in the community to socialize and moderate. -Intervene between bickering parties, getting blamed and dealing with an audience of spectators. -Coping with direct hack attacks on the server by members that should be cut off. -Swallowing a ton of emotions because you represent the website. -Being blamed and poked with a stick because people feel you slipped up. -Striving to catch every letter from every post in every forum to see nobody comes to harm. -Removing photos of poorly toilet-trained ladies and have those pictures pop up again a hundred times. -Monitoring suspected puppets and making sure they do no harm. -Nuking illegal activities planned by members in the chatrooms or on the boards. -Try to effect harmony in the forums. -Put initiatives like Shroomery Radio on wheels. -Being expected to tell it again, and again, and again, and then at length or U SUK. The list goes on and on. Nobody gets paid. The Administrators and their Moderators are a pro deo organisation of gung-ho volunteers who pour massive amounts of time and effort into this website, to throw this free party where all are invited and some of them act like the guests from Hell. Look for once at the massive effort which is put into the Shroomery Community. Ir seems to run itself, but it doesn't! It is a whole lot of work for a whole lot of people and some of the guests of the party really take a lot of motivation to deal with. But we do. Where were we? Oh right: Swami was banned in accordance with the rules, a mob of hostile members merged with some disgruntled and puzzled ones and completely chewed out the management as if, on top of all things, we owe them money too. Oh yeah, and Swami breaks his ban while stating a list of demands. We were to choose one representative of the Administry, in a public thread made specially for him, and then he would ask the questions and the Adminstry representative would supply the answers until Swami was satisfied he was not unjustly treated. Well.. no Swami. That's not how it works. Then Swami returned and poked up the fire again to prove he was mistreated. Which he wasn't, the ban was justified. But instead of laying low and engaging in Spir & Phil discussion Swami had to prove how he was wronged. Fed up with all this drama he was banned again. The Moderator felt harassed and was quite emotional. Several of us were feeling very harassed and very emotional. And the pounding went on. "Swami Solidarity". And make no mistake: for some of you that meant going to war against the Kings, who rule, and the ones appointed by the Kings to Moderate these forums. For some of you this meant sending PM's to other members to try persuade them to fight the moderators. For some of you this meant that Moderators were free game to flame the liquid shit out of, to pester and harass and deliberately twist their words to make them say it all again. And we took it. We took it all. We took a bullet or two for the Shroomery, for organized warfare against mods to free a member who was banned by the book, and we went and explained till we were blue in the face and very much disliked by some and behind our backs the Shroomery's own PM system was used against us to call in reinforcements. Needless to say we got a bit upset with all of this and said things which on hindsight were not the best words to say. And we apologized. You would likely mace such guests, pull a pillowcase over their heads and boot them out of your house but we apologized and explained again. Would you do all this on your website? Some say "The Shroomery isnt what it once was". Please remember Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise by the Lord God Almighty for the crime of biting on an apple. The Shroomery is a wonderful place. It's just that some people do not see that and choose to focus on the freedoms they do not have. And try as they might they never had those freedoms nor will they ever have them because they're guests of the party in the house of the Admins, and the admins are King. And Kings rule. No Democracy. A benignly, *very* benignly governed Kingdom that is highly underappreciated by some. And Swami, topic of this thread, was justly banned from the party, according to the Rules of the House, and several guests assembled a protesting platoon and raised Hell because they felt as wronged as the Swami. There are over three billion webpages on the Internet. This, like I said before, is entirely my own personal opinion. It is not policy, it is not a conbspiracy, it is strictly member-to-member discussion where I speak on my own account. If you have questions I might be inclined to answer but if anybody as much as hints at the total mess of Drama we've seen lately there likely won't be a reply on the boards, in PM or in any way. The last 5 days I have spent 60 hours rallying all over the Internet for the Tsunami victims. When I came to the Shroomery I got attacked by wave after wave of pointless Drama over a just ban. In some hours it'll be 2005. Happy New Year to all Shroomerites of good will. Wiccan_Seeker signing off.
| |||||||
|
Sclorch Clyster   Registered: 07/12/99 Posts: 4,805 Loc: On the Brink of |
| ||||||
|
I appreciate the tone of your post. IMHO, this was the first bullshit-free post by a mod on this subject. Finally.
There is still one crucial flaw in your personal opinion. I'd like to address that if you don't mind. If you don't think you can take my criticism of your opinion (not your person), then read no further. I'd say that over 90% of the people in S&P don't understand Swami's post style (I didn't at first either, but I caught on after awhile). There is NEVER any ill intent behind anything he says in here. He's all about getting to the fundamentals... the bare bones... the primary motivations. He does this by finding weaknesses in people's BELIEFS, THOUGHT PROCESSES, and/or IDEAS and then he explores these. He's explained himself every so often, but the audience changes and it sometimes that's hard to keep track of. Problems arise only when people misinterpret or misunderstand Swami's post style. People often take everything Swami says personally and get all bent out of shape even though his words clearly do not attack the poster (except in rare instances when he's been ad hominem attacked incessantly - like when Alex123, Enter, and Mr_Mushrooms used to cross that line so often... though the first two eventually figured out Swami). Furthermore, a double standard has most definitely been applied in this case. If you can't admit that there is a mod bias towards the esoteric crowd, then you've got some work to do in the realization department. Thanks for listening.
| |||||||
|
whiterasta Day careobserver Registered: 04/09/02 Posts: 1,780 Loc: Oregon |
| ||||||
|
W.S. for my part I have NOT involved myself in the swami issue until I posted my opinion in the feedback forum lamenting the loss of several long time posters and internet buddies in S&P and cervantes ASSUMED it to be another Swami thread and had it locked.
Swami's ban Just or unjust has NOT been my concern. Having a innocent thread which was inviting feedback on how to upgrade the conversation in S&P locked and then being baited by cervantes when I wanted an explanation why the thread was locked. A simple search will show when I became involved in all this bullshit and as a former moderator here i feel qualified to call it that.I agree about being in someone elses domain. but I also know when the "powers"(  ) are being abused.You seem to assume that a moderator cannot be out of line and if so guests are to accept it.Well try this scenario: the hired help is insulting the guests. Do they have a right to speak out to the "host" and voice their displeasure? Is the host interested in meeting the needs of the guests or is this just an ego party where body count is more important than the quality of the guests? Perhaps the analogy is flawed but you are intellgent enough to see the point. There has been another instance of a moderator stepping out of line which resulted in a permaban and account deletion.This mod was a friend of mine but he severely crossed the line of proper conduct(possbly while intoxicated). The offended "guest" spoke up,rightfuly, and the situation was looked at and dealt with. Now when the party is getting wierd and the help is offending the guests, what does the host do? WR 
-------------------- To old for this place
| |||||||
 geokills ∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙  Registered: 05/08/01 Posts: 23,253 Loc: city of angels 
Last seen: 11 hours, 48 minutes |
| ||||||
|
> Do [the disgruntled guests] have a right to speak out
> to the "host" and voice their displeasure? Always, but if in so doing, the guest is adversely affecting the environment for the remaining guests who are still enjoying the party, the host will be inclined to take the complaining guest outside and settle it face to face without the curious eyes of the bystandars. It would then be advised that the concerned guest present their opinion to the hosts in private, and said hosts will do their best to explain their stance. > Now when the party is getting wierd and the help is > offending the guests, what does the host do? For my part, the host will work to ensure that communication between the host's wishes and the ushers who tend to enforce such wishes will be clearer in the future in efforts to prevent such displeasure. All guests must however remember that respect is a two-way street and if they fail to offer it, it is less likely that they will receive it, regardless of how tactful the hosts and ushers may be. Edited by geokills (12/31/04 01:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
Moonshoe Blue Mantis  Registered: 05/28/04 Posts: 27,202 Loc: Iceland |
| ||||||
|
thank you wiccan seeker. i can definetly understand about the second banning for his list of 'demands' . that was absolutely ridiculous. what kind of logic dictates that when you get banned you are entiteld to make demands of the moderators? DEMANDS. what a piece of work. and he violated the ban to do that i guess to. didnt think of that.
but yeah its good to have some clear explanation. seemed to me like the mods were so silent about this it was hard to see it as anything but a personal thing but i tthink wiccan seeker cleared it up at least for me. thanks for all your hard work and keeping this place alive -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
incubaby_421 half naked andfu  Registered: 08/14/04 Posts: 2,629 Loc: the center of th Last seen: 5 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
"psychopsilocybin runnin, horny motherfucker, trippin on his shoelace, searchin for the hairy sucka, he dont need n funny money, his love is all his power, half naked, and full witted, and two weeks less a shower"-incubus.
sorry, wanted to lighten the mood a bit. maybe somebody shared a laugh with me. -------------------- "yet the more i dig, the more i consume, the more i unfold... the less protected i feel. i am the spit on the hair of the son of an electron, swimming around the nucleus of a cell inside the sperm of a killer bee, and my purpose is as nebulous as why weve been bestowed with the capacity to give a shit" Brandon Boyd 
| |||||||
|
Asante - new man - Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 86,400 |
| ||||||
Quote: Ah, I'm sorry but that's an opinion. If ninety percent of S&P posters don't get it and many feel bad about it a change of strategy might be in order, especially after several rounds of email exchange with the Admins. But instead of quitting the unacceptable behavior Swami seems to only up it, which is the wrong strategy to take if you are dealing with the owners of the website who already warned you before. So there is a difference of opinion regarding the benign-ness of Swami's style between us. I don't know if the moderators kean more towards the Spiritual side then to the Rational side as you suggest. But fact is that this has nothing to do with Swami's bannings. He was, in my personal view, justly banned in accordance with the rules for persistantly baiting, unpleasantly playing on the emotions and harassing other members a vision that seems to stand as Swami was not unbanned prematurely by the Administrators which they would do in case of a truely unjust ban. Read it in my mail. It is not about personal bias against his person or his stance: he was banned because of violation of rules of conduct. Whiterasta: I know when you got into the matter, and you indeed kept well out of the whole issue which dragged on from Swami's first ban onward. I had to respond to someone, I meant no personal offense. Quote: If the member feels unjustly treated by a moderator and has substantial grounds for that stance he can easily go over the head of the Moderator and address another Moderator or the Administrators directly. But: PM would be the acceptable way to do this as it then is a personal matter which does not require disrespecting said Moderator in public. I believe this is evident from the Administrative Rules and Guidelines. Quote: But no, then you misread my post. In the beginning of it I started off with very clear and sincere apologies for what I consider slipups on my part and other moderators have done the same. Administrators however throw the party and invite you into their house, and their will is the final word in all matters. Kings Rule. Quote: All I do is offer my view in things, but I am convinced that the Administrators always have the community's best interest at heart and since they are the only ones who hold unrevokable power and usually stand distant from the drama (the Moderators are the enforcers) I have no doubt they will do what they consider to be just. In the course of these Swami-ban days several Moderators, including myself, have been reprimanded and clearly instructed. As a former moderator you can understand I can not go into detail but I assure you very clear Administrator action was taken towards the Moderators who, like I, got caught up in the Drama. We're only human.. My loyalty lies with the Community but I answer to the Kings, and I yet have to see a sinle instance of them acting unjustly. Rest assured. The Shroomery is in capable hands. Quote: I don't understand what you mean by bodycount. Please remember that, as I see it, Swami was banned for bannable offences and re-banned because he insisted on upping the ante and take it all one step further. There is no bodycount, because as far as I know Swami will return and be welcome unless he persists in the behavior he was banned for in accordance with the rules. If a moderator is out of line this is firstly a private PM matter. If people choose to publicly flog a Moderator this is street justice and that forces the hand of the Administry. Politics are inevitable and a necessity when Moderating or Operating a web-community as large and diverse as the Shroomery.
| |||||||
|
Huehuecoyotl Fading Slowly  Registered: 06/13/04 Posts: 10,685 Loc: On the Border |
| ||||||
|
This is true...but if your guests decide to leave due to ungracious treatment on behalf of the "king's men" you have no party. WIthout a truly free exchange of ideas you have no party worth attending.
-------------------- "A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda
| |||||||
|
Asante - new man - Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 86,400 |
| ||||||
|
Huehuecoyotl, please reread my two posts.
In my view, Swami was not banned for his ideas but for violation of rules that are written down for all to read and are old as the Shroomery itself. As far as I know, the people who left did so without seriously PM-ing with more neutral Moderators or Administrators to see if they could effect a resolution to the conflict that made them feel that bad. If you leave the party "because of the behavior of some helpers" but did not personally, in private, tried to settle it with other helpers or the owners of the house, then they left the party in anger and people are as free to leave as they are to come. Sad as it may be, they decided to leave. Sad as it may be, I know of not a single PM discussion they had with neutral Moderators or Administrators to resolve the matter. If you choose to turn inward in anger, and leave in anger, nobody will stop you. And not even one-tenth of a single percent left the party. If the Shroomery itself was that important to them they would've stayed on board and try to calmly and civilly help to untangle the mess, and what a big mess it was from both the Members side and the Management's side. Many Moderators involved in the drama have clearly and publicly apologized for their own part in the mess. I did too, several times in this thread alone, but the ones who left deprived themself of these apologies and of the resolution of the conflict. And, as I feel I must stress yet again: In my view, Swami was not banned for his ideas but for violation of rules that are written down for all to read and are old as the Shroomery itself. A truely free exchange of ideas does not include the freedom to bait, badger and harass members what the Administry, in my view, has banned Swami for. You are free to treat your fellow members with respect and if you violate that for either too long or too severely, as decided by the Administrators, then you will be forced to leave. As I see it, according to the several events I was informed of, Swami was treated with a lenience that goes beyond the fixed rules. His longterm membership and involvement with this community earned him a preferential treatment of lenience, and he promptly used this lenience to violate his ban by posting/having posted a list of utterly preposterous demands and to create puppets which in itself can be a perfectly by-the-book bannable offence. Still, as far as I know, Swami is free to return when his ban is over. The "Swami Solidarity" movement has got no case. Swami has repeatedly broken rules, has been treated very leniently which includes elaborate PM communications with the Management, he has abused this leniency, the Moderators and Admins have taken some tremendous growls and snarling from quite some members because of it and still Swami is given a new chance to prove his good will. I wonder when we, the Adminstry, will hear elaborate personal yet public apologies like we have given? But instead people dramatically "leave forever" in anger. I wonder when those IP's will turn up again. Idealism is great, especially on a Spirituality/Philosophy forum, but at some point one has to show loyalty and respect to the ones that *give* you freedom to speak at all, because servers do not appear out of thin air and the Administry consists of a group of dedicated unpayed volunteers who work very hard 24/7 to be able to throw this party in the first place. I can't help but stress that I here speak my own mind and do not voice website policy. If you are a volunteer representative of a community there absolutely is not a shred of freedom of speech at all, and that is precisely how it should be. We are here for YOU. We voluntarily slip into a straightjacket of restrictions and open wide for the ball-gag of self-censorship for the good of the community. Sometimes we are under attack and have got the winning argument that'll end the drama and assaults, but if it would be in the best interest of the Community not to speak out we grit our teeth and take a bullet for the Shroomery. That can be frustrating and few user-members would want to be on a website that gags you like that. \ If you are a Community Volunteer however you have increased capabilities but agree to some pretty dire restrictions in the best interest for the Community at large. Please all of you appreciate this effort and respect us for it, even if we slip up entangled by community drama. There is a lot of love in this thread, and a genuine desire to come to understanding on all sides with no drama yet, and this is why I choose to answer your questions, but can only do so on personal title. Remember that it's not "Us vs Them" but rather "We, The Shroomery" which includes every member, whether he uses the boards, performs volunteer work to manage and moderate the boards, or owns the website entirely. It is time to become a whole again, and this thread shows how both sides find their peace again. Remember: because I'm a Moderator I can answer a lot of questions some of you may have, but I speak on my own account, how *I* see this and do not represent website policy. Still I'm one of the guys in green so my freedom-of-speech days are over. If my words are used as ammo (as happened before) or tension rises again I have to call it a day for the greater good. But if you got questions I can answer: let's have it. Let's think solutions and insight. .
| |||||||
|
Mushmonkey shiftlesslayabout  Registered: 09/25/03 Posts: 10,867 Last seen: 1 month, 21 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Yet if 90% are complaining about childish things, the rational and mature thing to do would be to tell them all to grow up, suck it up, and not ban someone for being right. It's not his fault that others are unable to cope with it being pointed out that what they have posted does not make sense. As I've said before.. if you wish your beliefs to be rationally consistant, you should gladly accept posts that would point out inconsistancies and irrationality. if you do not require that of your beliefs, you shouldn't give a flying fuck about posts that point out inconsistancies and irrationality. You can't have it both ways. if you believe in invisible gnomes, and it is pointed out that there is absolutely no proof that invisible gnomes exist.. I cannot express how childish it would be to PM a mod and cry about being harrassed. If you constantly are posted about those gnomes and it's constantly pointed out that there's no proof to support invisible gnomes, there IS NO HARRASSMENT. The poster pointing out the lack of proof is doing as much harrassment as the poster who is posting about the gnomes. That is really what the whole thing seems to boil down to for me. The mods and admins conceded to pressure from immature reactions. That is why I took such great offense, and why I've chosen to hardly post in this forum anymore. I've no time to worry about getting banned over someone else being a big baby and crying if I point out they are wrong or inconsistant or lack proof. Fact of the matter is, while I do feel Swami contributed a great deal to this site and forum.. that's not what got me posting those diatribes. The idea that childish reactions were being catered to is what upset me.. and still upsets me. disclaimer: i think i may have wandered around in this post, and i cant' go read over it. im friggin hung over :| have fun. -------------------- i finally got around to making a sig revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might grar. 
| |||||||
|
deff just love everyone  Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,385 Loc: clarity 
Last seen: 7 hours, 51 minutes |
| ||||||
|
umm
who cares? 
-------------------- 
| |||||||
|
gettinjiggywithit jiggy   Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
Mush cares as he says he is still upset, emotionally reacting to people who react from their upset emotions. Gotta laugh at the irony as it comes up again and again and again.
Boy the tables really got turned on those who didn't seem to be able to understand how some can react from upset emotions when they are told they are wrong. Tell them they are wrong about why swami was banned and look how upset they get and react? Hmmmmmmmm I think it clicked "understanding" of how it happens with the majority but their are still a few stragglers who can't see in themselves what they are criticizing others for and blaming the swami ban for. Non of them consider how others have left in the past for being told they are wrong or feeling like foul play invaded their sense of feeling comfortable participating here. They say, "who cares if they couldn't hack it, let them leave. Well mush, deff and many others are feeling the same way with the tables turned, who cares if some can't hack being told they are wrong and their delusions of foul play, let em leave. Maybe this outside perspective will help you understand something bigger then yourself here Mush, So, your at the best party in the city, every ones hanging chill enjoying themselves in their own way and its all cool. Then, you got some guys who start walking around "trolling" saying things like this to the other party guests and hired staff Dude, that chick your with is so ugly. You're belt doesn't match your shoes. You're a mess, read a fashion magazine. I ordered a gin and tonic and you gave me a gin and soda moron. DJ you suck, why are you playing all of this techno crap, (while the dance floor is bumping) some of us here want to hear Alice and chains or Beethoven. You're just being biased because YOU like that music. So new party guest, what are your thoughts on this subject? You're an idiot. You dance like one of Jerry's kids. You guys are talking nonsense, you must be fucked up, get off the drugs so I can understand you or shut up. Why are you sitting on the coffee table like it's a chair? That new guy doesn't belong at this party, he's different from us. Your hair looks like you stuck your finger in a light socket. You're drinking juice? What a wuss, can't handle Jack straight, be a man like me. So, picture that you have about 10 of these guys trolling the party, walking around looking for something to criticize to get "I am important look at me attention" and putting others down for the way they party , in an attempt to make them look lame, foolish or stupid, so they can look cool. People are slowly here and there leaving because of these guys not saying anything on the way out. Some are just playing back with them and not letting them interfere with the good party vibe and some, are just getting tired of it and they tell the host about them and to keep an eye on them. That's the big picture here. When the hosts decide to watch, they naturally will make their own determinations for how they see these guys effecting the over all tone of the party they wish to create and hold. They will handle it as they see fit and it's their house. What is this all really? Are some of you panicking because you saw King troller get a time out and now you are afraid, you're own little trolling parties within the big party are coming to an end? That's what it looks like from my seat up on the chandelier. All of this is just a perspective of many to view the big party from and it may be worth considering how some others are seeing as well. 
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Mushmonkey shiftlesslayabout Registered: 09/25/03 Posts: 10,867 Last seen: 1 month, 21 days |
| ||||||
Quote: The difference is I'm not crying about somebody disagreeing with my ideas and beliefs. Actually I'm not crying, foaming would be closer but that's not quite it either. It's the situation itself that's upsetting. Let's take Alex123 and me talking about gun control. Has happened several times since I've been here. We're on opposite sides of the issue. I don't get upset and complain to moderators because he disagrees with me. I don't get upset and complain to moderators because when I post something opposed to gun control, he would reply with a contrary opinion. That is simply how things work. Rather than get upset, what I would do is come back with another point, or clarify a previous point, or debunk a point he made. Am I going to change my viewpoint? Nah. Is he? Nah. So what. We'll argue the point for a while till it gets stale. No reason to cry about somebody disagreeing with you, ever. Jiggy, your party analogy's just a bit off. In your scenerio, the troller is walking around making personal attacks and insults, and not responding to anything. A closer analogy would be.. "Let's get a keg!" -"We have nowhere to put a keg and no way to keep it cold. Besides, no one has a tap. To get a keg would be a pointless waste." "I think we should get tiki torches." -"The party is indoors, and a tiki torch is an open flame. That may not be a good idea with many drunken revelers." "We're going to invite 2,000 people." -"There is only room for 100, tops." Basically the message being conveyed is: Don't point out errors and problems when the esoterics post about their invisible gnomes. or: Go away, no skeptics allowed. Your rational/scientific viewpoint is not welcomed here, the invisible gnomes take great umbrage when you point out there is no evidence to support their existence. Or, as.. I think it was Schlorch? put it: The Kumbayah forum. No disagreeing allowed. -------------------- i finally got around to making a sig revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might grar.
| |||||||
|
Asante - new man - Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 86,400 |
| ||||||
|
Mushmonkey: Relax. Now read on and please assume benevolent tranquility on my part.
You have hardly taken the effort to really read my posts in this thread. Much you say has been dealt with but you react as if nothing was said about it at all. Quote: Do you really believe that the Administry deals so lightly with the topic of harassment? Do you really believe the Administry would be "so childish" as to ban for such an occurrance? Wouldn't the management be able to discern true baiting, badgering and harassment from people angry their ideas are rejected? Quote: So the Administry wasn't rational and mature in their decision? Oh and 90% aren't complaining at all. Quote: You bring on the invisible gnomes. Now it is my time to get rational: 1...you seem to know this is about invisible gnomes (=irrational beliefs, I get your metaphor) while to my knowledge it isn't about that at all. Please read my posts here and don't carry on being angry. 2...you cannot reasonably be expected to have access to the Adminstrative and Moderator forums and all our PM emailboxes for the last months, yet you base your whole stance: Quote: on the assumption that you know exactly why Swami was banned and that all factors boil down to your example of "somebody who's beliefs were shown to be irrational". Who is being irrational here? How can you possibly defend your fierce flaming of the Administry on the basis of the assumption that you know all about what was discussed in meetings you didn't attend, in votes you never knew existed and discussions you weren't present in for months on end? You talk about rationality but in fact it is YOU who believes in the invisible gnome of knowing what drives the Administry. And that is hardly rational, because your version completely deviates from what is actually going on. Quote: Well you can let go of all that anger then. That is not the reason why Swami was banned in my view. If you want to hear my view on why Swami was banned read my earlier posts in this thread. So you can rest assured and relax: Swami, in my view, was banned for valid reasons that I described are written in the rules everyone can access. -------------------------------- and now a seperate matter that has nothing to do with Swami: -------------------------------- Quote: Chill out, sip a decaf and ponder your own words. you do not own the Spirituality & Philosophy forum You have to come to terms with the fact that some people believe in invisible gnomes. You display an incredible aggression towards people who believe in invisible gnomes. You cannot *stand* irrationality. Then you suddenly snap into the irrational belief that you know everything that is discussed and debated among the Administry. Then you jump to the irrational conclusion that the Administry is wrong while you know precicely what's right while you weren't even IN the meetings, polls, PM's, debates etc. Then you get highly emotional based on unfounded beliefs and conclusions. Then you start flaming the Administry. BADLY. You attack Moderators, me among them, fiercely like the deluded fundamentalists you so oppose. Relax. Some people believe in invisible gnomes. They have every right to post about that, because this is a *Spirituality* forum as well as a Philosophy forum. If Swami had rallied against a MEMBER in the same aggressive way you have rallied against MODERATORS over some invisible gnomes it would be quite likely he might have been banned forever immediately. People usually do not get banned for their ideas but for the way they treat other members. Please tone down your anger. Write your post and reread it to see if it's an appropriate response. Like the rules say: try to go out of your way to be civil. Being a Shroomerite is about being accepting and forgiving. While you (and others) were throwing rocks at specific Moderators one of them and I decided via PM to not request a longterm ban for you and in fact oppose that decision if other Moderators had called it despite the fact you were flaming the shit out of us and really pissed us off *badly*. So gritting our teeth we on our own call decided that you (and others) were venting steam unreasonably but understandably and that it was best to let you get it off your chests for the good of the Community. THAT is Moderating. Mushmonkey: you let yourself get caught up in the drama and became part of that drama because you got angry on an assumption instead of rationally getting the facts. Likewise I hope you won't fly off the handle like that when somebody talks about invisible gnomes: On the Spirituality forum you sometimes have to get in touch with your Inner Gnome  or at least step out of the threads, because things people really believe in are important to them. It is not the Rationality forum but rather the Gnomes & Skeptics forum and for the sake of community spirit (and the Administrative Rules & Guidelines) try to either get along, civilly disagree or politely ignore eachother.Please read my earlier poswts in this thread and take your time for it. I surely did!
| |||||||
|
deff just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,385 Loc: clarity
Last seen: 7 hours, 51 minutes |
| ||||||
|
nice wiccan
 my sentiments exactly 
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Sclorch Clyster Registered: 07/12/99 Posts: 4,805 Loc: On the Brink of |
| ||||||
|
Filibusters are incredibly sophistic.
Is Protagoras still teaching?
| |||||||
|
Mushmonkey shiftlesslayabout Registered: 09/25/03 Posts: 10,867 Last seen: 1 month, 21 days |
| ||||||
|
I had based my assumption that one of the main reasons for the ban was due to pressure on the fact that it was stated, I think in the WAF thread, that that ban was based on many complaints being recieved and all the work he's caused the mods of this forum over the years.
The way it was worded lead me to believe that the work he caused the mods was directly a result of the complaints being recieved. Perhaps I misunderstood that point. (and an aside, today it's not anger in my posts.. it's just a hangover) Now, I have read these forums for a while, and as I never percieved any sort of baiting, personal attacks or harrassment, they had to be counted out as being a possible reason for a ban. That leaves, basically, just one thing.. that being people who felt as if they were being harrassed, attacked, or baited because their ideas or beliefs were continually being nitpicked. Quote: It's not aggression towards those who believe in invisible gnomes. They can go ahead and believe in invisible gnomes if they want to. I'll go ahead and point out there never once has been any proof offered as to the existence of invisible gnomes. They can either decide their belief does not require proof, and heck, I'll admit that's a bit frustrating for me, but you just have to shrug it off. I'm not about to try and FORCE anyone to believe anything. Or, they can decide their belief DOES require proof. And, from there either offer up proof that invisible gnomes are real, or abandon their invisible gnome theory. If they choose to offer proof the gnomes are real, that's also fine. If that proof is solid, hey, maybe I'd review the situation and change MY point. If the proof is not, I'll probably point out the problems I notice with it and why I can't accept it as proof. And then we go around again. No anger or hatred, just discussion.. though I'll admit I can come across pretty damned abrasive at times, I hope yall realize I'm not actually an angry, bitchy person nor do I intend my posts to be angry and bitchy. Just imagine a wry smile behind my posts, that might help It's not about FORCING someone to abandon their beliefs. I may try to persuade or reason with them.. just as they would try to persuade or reason with me to accept those same beliefs. Back and forth.. it's a level playing field and the rules are fair. Quote:  The facts offered fit the assumptions made. As I said, I never noticed anything in Swami's conduct that would single him out from any other user on this forum, excepting his longevity and prolific posting.So far as everything arising around this after that first ban.. I've tried to make it clear that I'm not talking about that. I've no wish to contend a list of demands or a puppet account.. I didn't even see the list of demands, and though personally I could care less about the puppet (not just swam's, but most of them) it is pretty open-and-shut. (though I did make one comment about the puppet I believe, that being other known puppets have been allowed to continue with no ban for the primary or puppet account for quite some time.. not to argue against that ban, merely to point out that although it is clearly against the rules, the actions taken from that point on aren't as clear as they would at first seem to be). As I said in the WAF thread.. I don't hold any animosity or hatred towards any of the mods or admins. I took issue with a decision, not the people that made it. Sometimes when you're after a squirrel, it'll run up a tree and lay flat against it in a nook.. well, one way to try and get them to show themselves again is to bang on the trunk of the tree. The tree's not hurt, but that squirrel just may pop his head out. I have no friggin clue what kind of analogy I'm trying to make there.. but I'll leave it hoping that it makes sense and my head just hurts too much for me to understand myself right now :p All I was tryin to do was call it as I saw it. I can't remember who, but I think it was a greenie, said that questioning of authority and the official line given is to be expected considering the types of people that would be drawn to this site.. and while obviously the owners can do whatever they want, that does not mean that if they were to do something unfair that it should not be mentioned. I'm not saying that what was done IS unfair, but I'm not calling it fair, either. At this point (well, actually at -that- point, I think we passed it a while back) it's pretty clear that neither side's going to change their mind about anything, so I've pretty much resigned to agree to disagree. I still don't see the things that were given as reasons, but the boards I cut my teeth on were just a few shades away from completely unmoderated.. flames, bait, and harrassment hardly register anymore, and the idea of sending a PM to a moderator about someone else's behaviour is totally alien to me (if anything I would respond to flames, bait and harrassment in kind.. though I've tried to smooth a few edges since I did get a warning for that about a year back now. Boy howdy do I wish I'd saved THAT post.. whew. (and no one get upset about that, either -- I believe the guy I was blasting got banned, i think before I even was told to calm it down)). It's fortunate for others, since I'm not about to start complaining about them, but unfortunate for me -- since I tend to assume others would act similarly, though I guess many don't, and do take issues to moderators. Oh.. and I have to fess up. I didn't make up the invisible gnomes! A friend of mine did several years ago -- his assertion was that we lose the ability to recognize them due to cultural biases, or something along those lines. We had a lengthy discussion about how it could or could not work.. and he's only the SECOND most.. I'm at a loss for the correct word here, so I'll just call them crazy.. person I know (though he and #1 are both quite crazy I assure you, I'm obviously not insinuating that all crazy beliefs are crazy.. and even a crazy and misguided belief may have value (though I do think the better course would be to take that value alone and remove the extranious, but i'm going off-topic yet again)). Several years after that I did co-opt the invisible gnomes -- I argued instead for invisible dwarves as the building blocks of all matter, and since dwarves like alcohol, ".. Give me my damned whiskey back right now so I can satiate them or they'll get pissed off, start a fight, and then I'll blow up". yay and it worked Oh.. this is actually off-topic as well but wtf. Quote: I'm not entirely clear on your response to this.. in my mind it's a perfectly reasonable stance. If someone has a belief, and they feel that their beliefs must be rationally consistant.. would it not be doing them a disservice to NOT point out where that belief is inconsistant? If they require no such thing of themselves, it would not matter if you point out an inconsistancy or not. I've had people point out inconsistancies in MY beliefs.. and yes, it does suck. Long and hard. I didn't take offense, because.. well, they were right. Sometimes I knew beforehand that I can't explain holding position A while also holding position B, sometimes I didn't and needed to take a bit of time to try and resolve the two into a consistant, single position.. because I do personally disdain being inconsistant. Now, you can choose to continue to have inconsistant beliefs.. however, if you'd choose consistancy instead, how could you be upset if errors are pointed out? And if it doesn't bother you, why would you be upset? If I'm wearing a red shirt, I don't get pissed if someone tells me I'm wearing a red shirt -- and if I told someone I'm wearing a blue shirt, but it's actually red, how could I get pissed at them for telling me so? So.. just as people are free to believe in and post about invisible gnomes, I too am free to believe and post that they do not exist. And no one should get offended at any of it. And the reason I used 'childish' so often is that that's simply the label I use when someone gets upset about something they have no reason to get upset over. No one is being harmed by anything said here... rational OR irrational. In the end either nothing will change -- and you can't really complain about that -- or beliefs will be gained and lost, and no matter what direction you're moving it can only be, for you, a positive change. If you find that after some discussion, you cannot help but abandon, or acquire, a belief.. that can only be a positive change, as that old belief must not have fit correctly, or that new belief must fit correctly. Change isn't as comfortable as not changing, but if there is a change it's not likely that you've been tricked into it -- it's probably because you recognize that it would be good to either abandon or adopt that belief. It's not about owning the forum and forcing things on others, it's simply that I find taking offense and getting upset about things that there is no reason to be offended and upset about to be immature and a detriment primarily to yourself, but also to those who would be forced to change themselves because you are easily offended and upset. There is such a thing as sensitivity, but to expect others to handle you with kid gloves because you're easily upset is selfish. If you're easily offended and upset, what you SHOULD do is try to discover what the problem is and why you are like that -- solve a problem -- rather than force others to accomodate you -- creating a problem. No, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here.. if you think it applies to you, point your own finger at yourself, I'm not going to. I can't make a fair estimation of any individual person, this is merely just generalities I'm speaking of.. and the original statement was made under the assumption that the banning dealt with people complaining because their beliefs didn't hold up to rational scrutiny, which may or may not be the case. However, if you find yourself pointing into the mirror, I'd say go ahead and take my advice and try to figure out the how's and why's of the matter.. you'll wind up better for it in the end. -------------------- i finally got around to making a sig revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might grar.
| |||||||
|
LunarEclipse Enlil's Official Story  Registered: 10/31/04 Posts: 21,407 Loc: Building 7 |
| ||||||
|
"The Kumbayah forum. No disagreeing allowed."
While I respect your right to believe that, I disagree with you on this matter most emphatically! I do wish to commend you for explaining the reasons for your anger in a calm and rational manner. However, you are not being rational in your overall position as Wiccan, Jiggy and others have pointed out. To wit: you are holding unproveable and therefore questionable beliefs regarding the Swami ban and the circumstances behind it. As Wiccan has pointed out, how could you MM know the five year history of PMs to various mods and admins precipitated by Swami? How can you know their leniency (or in fairness to you lack thereof) regarding this situation based on your ignorance of the content of the various PMs from members to mods to Swami over five years? Face it, your position is irrational and untenable in this area. Worse, your reaction has been the same anger and not posting that you seem to think is the problem with all of the weak emotional people who can't handle having their irrational beliefs challenged. That's not only ironic, that's hypocritical. Having said that, I still respect your right to hold irrational beliefs. Please stay and don't get mad as I would like to discuss it further with you. -------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
| |||||||
|
Asante - new man - Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 86,400 |
| ||||||
Quote:  .
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
╥π╬...
| Shop: North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies Bulk Cannabis Seeds Buy Bali Kratom Powder Red Vein Kratom Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
swami would love this (  1 2 all ) |
 Moonshoe |
1,460 | 20 | 10/23/04 12:04 PM by fireworks_god |
|
|
Santa, Christ, and the holidays |  CherryBom |
757 | 16 | 12/08/04 08:02 PM by CherryBom |
|
 |
Is there really a Santa Claus? |  Swami |
793 | 14 | 11/25/03 02:24 PM by Scarfmeister |
|
 |
Is Santa Claus a stalker / peeper? | Swami |
581 | 7 | 12/24/03 10:31 PM by micro |
|
|
Swami/Shroomism relations ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Learyfan |
6,171 | 68 | 03/20/02 07:32 PM by Swami |
|
 |
Swami doesn't exist ( 1 2 all ) |
Swami |
1,292 | 24 | 05/30/05 05:32 PM by Huehuecoyotl |
|
 |
Swami Reiki Challenge ( 1 2 3 all ) |
Swami |
4,277 | 42 | 03/06/03 02:55 AM by Sclorch |
|
 |
Swami visited by the Spiritual Police ( 1 2 all ) |
Swami |
3,648 | 32 | 08/03/06 07:19 PM by PhanTomCat |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 5,674 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 42 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
